NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[POI]

I do not think this is splitting hairs. In fact, this seems essential to this thread. The definition in Hebrews is well known. It is the definition of faith provided by the New Testament, yet this thread uses a different definition and applies that new definition to the NT.

You glossed over my repeated citing of the story of 'doubting Thomas'. This story tells readers that the ones who still believe without seeing are revered more than the ones who only believe after seeing. Since most won't get a direct "Jesus experience", the Bible states more-so are the ones rewarded who apply faith anyways.

I can think of only two reasons for this.

One is that in creating this thread the author was unaware of the definition provided by the NT. This lack of knowledge about the NT would make it difficult to accept any conclusion about the NT that come from this thread.

Well, since the NT was not canonized until much later, the author of one verse may very well of not known what the author of another verse wrote. Maybe blame this on the church who later decided what to place in the canon, and what to leave out.

The other option is that in creating this thread the author does know about the definition provided by the NT and intentionally chose a different definition. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I lean toward this explanation. However, this would mean that in creating the thread the author knew that the definition provided by the NT would not serve their purposes, so they chose a different definition specifically because it was a significant change (i.e. not splitting hairs).

See my repeated mentions about "doubting Thomas".

The NT authors certainly portray these events as unusual and therefor noteworthy, but I do not see anything in the text which suggests that they did not think their account were believable. Obviously a person can chose not to believe what was written, but we should not impose our cynicism onto the writers.

Already explained.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #114
My friend, we have already been down this road, and it makes no sense. I believe you have come to the conclusion that Christianity may well be true, correct? Exactly what reasoning method did you use which allowed you to come to such a conclusion? Exactly what method of reasoning did the majority of scholars use (whether Christian or not) to come to the conclusion that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after the crucifixion? In fact, these scholars do not simply believe this to be the case, but this is rather something they say we can know. How are these scholars so convinced this is something we can know? Well, it can only be by reading what is contained in the NT. Before we move on, it must be said that these scholars are not saying that those who authored the NT were convinced the earliest followers were convinced they had encountered Jesus after death. Rather, they are saying we can know the earliest followers were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus after death.

Whether you would like to admit it or not, this is huge. It is huge in that this tells us we have enough facts and evidence, not simply to believe the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced this to be the case, but rather to know this to be the case. Next, if the scholars are correct (and the evidence certainly is in their favor) this means we can know these folks were not involved in any sort of hoax. The fact of the matter is, we can pretty much know this to be the case anyway, because it would have been next to impossible for these folks to pull such a thing off. At any rate, we are back to knowing these early followers were not intending to report what they knew to be fiction, nor were they intending to report legend, or myth, and we can also eliminate the idea they may have been lying, and we can do this with the facts and evidence we have contained in the NT.

Now, none of the above demonstrates a resurrection occurred, but it certainly does not eliminate a resurrection. You leave open the possibility that a resurrection may have occurred, but you really are convinced that it did not. That is, if you are going to be intellectually honest. Or are you saying that you have not made up your mind on the matter as of yet? Do you really want to tell us that you do not hold a position on the matter? On the other hand, I certainly admit that the resurrection may not have occurred, but I am convinced that it did. With this being the case, I am not insisting that those opposed, or those who claim to abstain, do not have reasons for the position they hold, and I am not in any way questioning their method of reasoning. What I am questioning is those who tell us they were a convinced Christian at one time, who goes on to admit they used a faulty reasoning process to come to such a conclusion, who now wants to ensure us that they really do not hold a position at all concerning whether Christianity is true or not.

The point is, if you are leaving open the possibility that Christianity is true, then there must and have to be good reasons to believe it to be true, otherwise there would be no good reason to leave open the possibility. If this is the position you hold, then there is not a whole lot of difference between the position I hold, in that I am not insisting those opposed have no good reason to be opposed, and I am not questioning their method of reasoning. The only option I see left would be to say, there are no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, but since I cannot demonstrate it to be false, we have to leave open the possibility. If this is the case, then there would be a difference between us in that I again, am not insisting those opposed do not have reasons for doubt, and or unbelief.

The real question is, are you truly convinced there is a possibility Christianity may in fact be true? Or do you hold to the position that the possibility is slim to none? I truly understand the possibility of my error, and the thing is, (whether you would like to believe it or not) I would rather not believe the Christian claims. If you were truly a convinced Christian at one time, who truly understood, and now understands what Christianity is about, can you please explain to me why anyone would want to believe it, if they truly understand it? I really do not get it?

If I am correct, then we have those who are Christian who would rather believe it, who really do not understand it. However, this may also mean we have those who have rejected Christianity who would have rather believed it to be true, which would demonstrate they could not have possibly understood it, because if they would have truly understood it, they could not have possibly rather believe it.

Nothing in your response above is relevant to my original post or my previous post. I wasn't asking about what NT scholars may or may not know about the earliest followers of Jesus. None of that information and nothing about me matters to the question of if the investigative method you've chosen is reliable or not. I'm only interested in your chosen method of investigation at the moment because, if it is not reliable or its reliability is otherwise undetermined, then there is no justifiable reason for you or anyone to accept any conclusions it arrives at or any arguments it makes about facts, evidence, possibilities, probabilities, or anything else.

[Tcg]

Does your mind really work this way?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tcg]

Well, pardon me if I am not convinced their reasoning is any better now. In other words, simply because one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the mind is now engaged.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bjs1]

I do not think this is splitting hairs. In fact, this seems essential to this thread. The definition in Hebrews is well known. It is the definition of faith provided by the New Testament, yet this thread uses a different definition and applies that new definition to the NT.

You glossed over my repeated citing of the story of 'doubting Thomas'. This story tells readers that the ones who still believe without seeing are revered more than the ones who only believe after seeing. Since most won't get a direct "Jesus experience", the Bible states more-so are the ones rewarded who apply faith anyways.

In the account about “doubting Thomas” Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

That is not the definition of faith provided in the post 1.

So this supports my claim that the definition of faith provided in this thread is not the one used by the NT writers.

I can think of only two reasons for this.

One is that in creating this thread the author was unaware of the definition provided by the NT. This lack of knowledge about the NT would make it difficult to accept any conclusion about the NT that come from this thread.

Well, since the NT was not canonized until much later, the author of one verse may very well of not known what the author of another verse wrote. Maybe blame this on the church who later decided what to place in the canon, and what to leave out.

Very well. This would invalidate the claims about the NT writers made in of post 1.

If indeed some authors did not know what others were writing (unlikely, but not impossible) then we cannot make any assessments about that would apply to all of the NT writers.

[POI]

In the account about “doubting Thomas” Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” That is not the definition of faith provided in the post 1.

Sure it is. In this case, Thomas's given direct evidence was both seeing and feeling Jesus for himself. And blessed are the ones who do not see and still believe.

The OP states ""to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. ". Since most are not going to get a direct 'Jesus' moment, most will doubt, just like Thomas. The default position is to be skeptical, which then requires faith instead. Or in this case, to trust or hope for it anyways, despite inferences to the contrary --- that dead and rotting corpses stay dead.

Very well. This would invalidate the claims about the NT writers made in of post 1.

Not if the later "church", which ultimately canonized this collection, augmented stuff to comprise of the final canon 100's of years later. It's quite feasible the later consensus was to prop up blind faith. Likely because they knew most would not believe mere claims from an ancient collection of writings. To gain new converts, 'evidence' was not going to persuade, since there really would not be any actual evidence, just claims. Hence, (faith and fear) it was.

If indeed some authors did not know what others were writing (unlikely, but not impossible) then we cannot make any assessments about that would apply to all of the NT writers.

All the earliest writers were writing their own accounts, as heard from whatever oral traditions they were given at the time. None of these documents were official and authoritative until 'the church' made them so centuries later. A bit of tweaking here, and a bit of editing there, and viola, you have a collection of documents, certified by 'the church', which is designed to grab new converts by way of (faith and fear).

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #122]

Well guys, I have been pretty busy over the last few weeks, and as you can see, I am being overwhelmed with those I need to respond to. With that being the case, although I would love to respond to all, I am going to have to pick and choose.

I'm only interested in your chosen method of investigation at the moment because, if it is not reliable or its reliability is otherwise undetermined, then there is no justifiable reason for you or anyone to accept any conclusions it arrives at or any arguments it makes about facts, evidence, possibilities, probabilities, or anything else.

We have been down this road over, and over. First, I am not asking you to accept any conclusions at all, accept the conclusions which have been demonstrated to be fact. Allow me to attempt to demonstrate. It is a fact we have the material contained in the NT. It is a fact we had this material hundreds of years before the Bible was composed. It is a fact that we have at least five different sources who report on a resurrection of some sort. It is a fact that the majority of scholars claim we can know, by reading this material, that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Notice here, it is not the scholars are convinced the authors were convinced the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had witnessed this event, but rather the scholars are saying we can know the earliest followers were convinced in what they saw, and they say we can know this by reading what is contained in the NT.

As you can see, I am not asking you to accept any of what I have said above to be fact, rather what I have said above is fact, whether you accept it or not. I am using the same method one would use in a court of law, or the method an investigator would use, in which you gather all the facts and evidence you can know. Many, if not most cases involving the law, cannot be absolutely demonstrated, but folks are convicted based upon the facts and evidence we can know. This is the difference between Christianity and the religions of the world. The religions I am aware of, are based upon one hearing in one way or another from God, and telling us what God wants us to know, and, or, how we should live. Christianity is not based upon anyone claiming to hear from God and going on to tell us what God wants us to know, and, or, how we should live. Rather, Christianity is based upon what different sources claim to be a historical event, and if this historical event did not occur then Christianity is useless. It is a fact this historical event can be researched, which is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of scholars claim we can know from the facts and evidence we have that the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Of course, this does not prove a resurrection occurred, but it does tell us there is a lot more involved than simply, "the Bible says it I believe it and that settles it", but it is also more involved than a resurrection is impossible (which we all know) or comparing Christianity to religions.

[POI]

Well then Realworldjack, allow me to take the same liberty, in picking and choosing; due to valuable time....

It is a fact we have the material contained in the NT.

Yes, we have a vast collection of claims here, just like we do with any other claimed holy book.  If all these claims merely suggested was that a homeless Jewish preacher was born, lived, worked in carpentry, and was ultimately killed for blasphemy, and the end, then, I doubt anyone would kick up much of any fuss. Like many other stories, most readers would not care to investigate as to the claimed veracity of such assertions too much. It would really not matter whether or not belief in such claims were actually true. HOWEVER, this book does not stop there. The book also tells us to apply (faith and fear), care of Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc........

Not only are we supposed to take the Bible's word that Jesus was born in a barn, lived and did work as a carpenter, was homeless, raised up a cult following -- (by way of preaching), and was ultimately executed for claims of blasphemy, but we are ALSO supposed to believe he was born of a virgin, walked on water, battled 'Satan', transformed and multiplied food products, healed the sick/blind/other, and for the grand finally, returned from the dead ~3 days later to go on a resurrection tour. And we are supposed to believe this collection of supernatural claims, based basically upon (faith and fear). (i.e.) The Bible is the claim(s), not the evidence. Alternatively, if we are instead to apply skepticism to such claims, and investigate, like we would any other claim(s) to the supernatural, we are left with very little to propel us against retaining skepticism, which again, is why the Bible props up (faith and fear) in the first place.

It is a fact we had this material hundreds of years before the Bible was composed.

Yes, a very small scrap (from 'John') has been dated back to as early as ~125-150 AD. Prior to this, nothing has been located.

It is a fact that we have at least five different sources who report on a resurrection of some sort.

Here is another fact. When you compare 'Mark' to Luke', 'Luke' produces alternative facts to 'Mark'. And not due to differing earnest perspective(s). No, instead out of convenience. Maybe we can blame this oversight upon the council who haphazardly decided which documents to ordain, and which ones to leave out In an effort to respect your time, by saving you from me reciting a text wall, here is a ~15-minute video explaining:



(without watching the video) --- Ultimately, I think 'the church' is corrupt. And this is where we are supposed to reference our source(s) for claims of the supernatural?

It is a fact that the majority of scholars claim we can know, by reading this material, that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Notice here, it is not the scholars are convinced the authors were convinced the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had witnessed this event, but rather the scholars are saying we can know the earliest followers were convinced in what they saw, and they say we can know this by reading what is contained in the NT.

Yes, we've been over this Realworldjack. We have countless claims, where there is no doubt these folks truly believe they live within the supernatural, like haunted houses. Heck, I can even buy tickets now to go to "haunted houses" where many earnest claims/reports are said to have occurred. And yet, are they really taken seriously? No! Maybe instead, if it had been ordained by the Roman church, many centuries ago Religion apparently gets a special pass. We can logically remain in our skepticism, without much of any scrutiny. But when it comes to 'god claims', we must apply a differing epistemology. Again, this is why (faith and fear) is propped up in the Bible!

I'll stop here....

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

First, "addressed to" doesn't always coincide with the intended audience.

What would be a fact is that this would be the case in the overwhelming majority of cases, and we would need some sort of evidence to come to the conclusion that the author intended the material to be read outside those addressed. The point is, I am not simply assuming the material was addressed to particular audiences, because this would be a fact. One would have to assume the material may have targeted a wider audience.

Second, the only things that are "demonstrated" are the actual wordings of the texts. Your conjectures beyond those about authorial intention are just that: conjecture.

My friend, the "wordings of the texts" gives us a pretty good idea of the intentions of the author, and we do this all the time with texts. In fact, this is exactly how historians tell us we can be certain about historical events in ancient history, and that is by reading letters from those at the time. It is sort of funny how we do not seem to have trouble being sure of the intentions of the author with other material, but for some strange reason when it comes to the material in the NT we just cannot be certain. Again, it is a fact the majority of the material was addressed to believing audiences at the time, and that is not "conjecture". What would be conjecture is to suppose the material was intended by the author to unbelievers as well.

Allow me to give you an example of where you would have no trouble understanding the intentions of the authors from long ago. There are a good number of folks who want to insist the United States was founded upon Christianity. However, when we read the Constitution, we discover the exact opposite. In fact, there is no question at all about the authors intention, and it is abundantly clear the intention was that the nation was not to be founded upon any religion at all. The authors of the Constitution ensured the federal government could not favor any religion at all putting to rest the idea that the nation was founded upon Christianity.

Now, the question is, would you allow those who want to argue the nation was founded upon Christianity to get away with the idea that we cannot be sure of the intention of the authors? Would you allow them to give the argument that most of the founders were Christian and this should trump the wording in the Constitution? Of course, you would not allow such a thing, nor would I, because the intention is abundantly clear. I have been in a debate with Doug Wilson in the past where he made the statement, "it was a Christian society whose standard was the Bible which gave us the Constitution". I agreed with this statement, but went on to say, "and this Christian society whose standard was the Bible ensured the federal government could not be involved in religious affairs.

This is pure speculation.

It is not speculation in the least when the authors address believing audiences at the time, and never give any indication that others are in mind other than the intended audience. Speculation is involved when one assumes the author intended those who were not believers. A very good example of this would be Paul's letter to Philemon. What in the world would Paul want to communicate to the unbeliever there? We can go on to Paul's letters to the Corinthians in which Paul is mostly addressing issues in that particular Church. What is Paul attempting to communicate to the unbeliever? We can continue to move on, as we get to the material addressed to Theophilus. The evidence suggests this material is addressed to an individual who was already a believer. This is not conjecture but fact. What I would need is some sort of evidence the author had others in mind besides Theophilus, and if we have no such evidence then it would be conjectured to suggest anything else.

We already discussed the difference between "any sort of Bible" and "the Bible as we know it now." Your statement as written is either false or meaningless, depending on what you mean by "any sort of Bible."

First, we are talking about the authors contained in the NT and it is a fact which cannot be denied that the authors could not possibly known about the NT their writings are now contained in. The point is the authors were not aware what they were writing at the time would have been contained in a book together which would later become the best seller of all times. It is true the intended audiences saved this material, and the material began to circulate among the Churches, but we are still talking about those who would have already been believers. The point is, we have no indication the authors had a wider audience in mind as they wrote, nor do we have any indication they intended what they authored to be used to persuade the unbeliever.

There are no letters addressed to Theophilus. Luke and Acts are dedicated to Theophilus, but they aren't letters.

My friend, you can call it whatever you wish but the fact remains the material was addressed to Theophilus, and we have very good reasons to believe this to be an individual, with no evidence to the contrary. In other words, I do not have to speculate the material was addressed to Theophilus, but one would have to speculate that the author had a wider audience in mind other than Theophilus. However, either way, it is certain the letter was addressed to an audience who would have already believed, and not to the unbelieving world.

We don't even know if Theophilus was a real person or a stand-in for "dear Reader."

Again, we do not have to speculate the material is addressed to Theophilus. We would have to speculate the author used the name as a "stand-in for dear Reader".

Even if being addressed to believers indicates that the intended audience is solely those believers, that still only includes the Pauline epistles.

I'm afraid not. As we have just discussed the material addressed to Theophilus (whoever that may be) was addressed as one who already believed.

Even there, though, only half of those are most likely genuine, leaving us to wonder what was intended by the other half.

The key words above are "most likely" which really means nothing at all. As an example, the letters addressed to Timothy is questioned and the only reason I have heard for this is the advanced structure of the Church described in the letters. If this is all one has, it certainly does not cause it to be "most likely" especially when you take into consideration the rest of the letter. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be other reasons there are those who want to question the authorship of these letters? I mean, I certainly understand why those opposed would have reasons to question the authorship, and that is because it does not bode well for the position they hold.

I mean, can you imagine one attempting to get a message across under the name of Paul, going to the trouble to say all of this?

"Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take along Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the overcoat which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments".

Seriously? This is just one example, and the author is supposedly simply attempting to get a message across under the authority of the name Paul, and he goes to the trouble above of casual conversation, telling the pretend audience about different individuals, and then going on to make requests of the pretend audience to bring certain items and a person, telling them where he left his coat. Early in the letter the author actually refers to the mother and grandmother of this pretend audience, and you want to claim the letter is "most likely" not a Pauline letter? Based on what?

I can certainly tell you that I see very good reasons why those opposed would have to question the authorship, and one of those reasons is the fact that the author mentions Luke as being the only one left with him. Combined this with the evidence we have that Luke was the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus, and we have very good reasons to understand why the author would have used the words "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul. So yeah, you can question the authorship if you like, but the one thing you cannot say is that there would be no evidence the author was indeed Paul, and you also cannot deny the fact that there would be very good reasons why those opposed would be forced to question the authorship.

Were the pseudepigraphic Paulines intended only to sway the opinions of existing believers?

First, and far-most, I know of no letters attributed to Paul which have been demonstrated to be pseudepigraphic. Next, you are still talking about "swaying the opinions of existing believers" which is my exact argument. In other words, the argument from some is, the material was in some way intended to persuade the unbeliever, while it can be demonstrated the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to those who already believed, even if the material was not authored by the one it has been attributed to.

In any event, seven of the Paulines is not the "overwhelming majority" of the New Testament.

It certainly is when the argument is that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to those who already believed, no matter who the author may have been. So then, when we combine what is addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters attributed to Paul, we have the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who were already believers no matter the author.

t's generally accepted that the catholic epistles were penned after the Church had estblished the practice of circulating copies of letters between them. Considering also the broad and likely symbolic addressees ("to the Twelve Tribes of the Diaspora," "to them that are called 'beloved of the Father'"), it's not a stretch to think that the letters were intended for wider circulation than some insular group of those secure in their faith.

My friend, it is an undeniable fact that the genuine letters of Paul were authored before 70 AD. Now, we are to suppose that Paul is the only author we have from the time who would have authored letters? But all of this is really beside the point. The point is, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who already believed, and this is not speculation. It would be speculation to go on to assume that the authors intended the material to persuade the unbeliever.

To end, let's not get off track here. The point I am making is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who already believed, and it does not matter who the author may have been. This is not speculation but rather fact. It would indeed be speculation to assume the author must have targeted the unbeliever.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

Let's see if we can take one thing at the time and come to some sort of agreement.

Not only are we supposed to take the Bible's word that Jesus was born in a barn

I am not asking you to "take the Bible's word". In fact, I wish the Bible had never been composed. The Bible does not tell us anything at all, because the authors penned the words hundreds of years before the Bible. This may sound like I am parsing words, but it is extremely important, in that there is a tremendous difference between a book reporting on an event, as opposed to different sources reporting on the same event. The point is, the Bible is not the source of the reports, and therefore we are not getting the information from one source. If we can agree to this then we can move on to the rest.